tv Glenn Beck FOX News October 31, 2009 2:00am-3:00am EDT
clinton and m president bush 41. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] welcome to the glenn beck program. these are lahl wean masks by the huffington post, and there is also this one from froshes mag magazine. come on, i'm not that bad! i can't believe that the huffington post is more kind than forbes magazine. is the science settled? are we headed for one world government, and three, if we save the earth, do we destroy our children's future? america, if you believe this country is great, but you're not really into that one world government thing, watch out! because the masks are coming off. stand up, follow me!
hello, america. if you missed last night's show, go back on-line and watch it or d.v.r. it every day. we showed you people with clear influence around the white house who want to transform this country into something revoluntionary, are almost venezuelan in nature, completely different than what our founders intended. they want to turn us into a country that focuses more on spreading the wealth than actually creating it, a place where success is punished, mediocrity is encouraged. everybody will get a trophy, in favor of a nanny state that just knows better than you do. i can't help but think that we are rat a crossroads. maybe the white house will call
me on that statement. did i get that one wrong? i don't think we did. we're at a crossroads. we have to choose. do you want to turn back towards our founders and more freedoms, more personal liberty, and more personal responsibility and ak accountability or do you want to continue down this reckless path that it doesn't seem that anybody who does anything wrong actually pays for it. they will try to tell you this is a directless path that president obama and others are planning for. they will say this healthcare is deficit neutral. isn't it like a trillion dollars? so we're spending a trillion dollars? how is that deficit neutral? they have to raise the money. they have to find that money someplace. the health of our country is not good. we can't afford more massive government programs. our dollar will eventually go away if we continue down this path, and when it collapses, who is going to save us? because americans, america is
too big to fail, you know? people will argue that another stimulus, another adrenaline shot is the answer. hey, that's why our g.d.p. was up because of the stimulus. those stimulus shots are as bogus as the adrenaline shots in the movies. do you remember this one from "mission impossible 3"? >> thank you. glenn: those add dwren lynn -- those adrenaline shots will shock the system and work for a minute but we know what happens when the government tries to shoot an injection into the heart. it fails. the real answer and the answer that nobody in washington wants to give you is you, the individual. government is going to say mark
my words, it's the imf or the u.n. government, and even bigger government will come to the rescue when this government can no longer afford to do it. with me now, lord christopher monkton, former advisor to margaret thatcher and climate change expert and john bolton, former ambassador to the u.n. and fox news contributor. i was thinking that if i were on the extreme left, i wouldn't know which one of us was the most sane. is it lord monk caan? is it you, the evil 'em perrer, or is it just me, i don't know? we want to talk about what i have seen on video from you, lord monkton, about this. this is the framework convention on climate change. explain what this is, first. >> right. this is an agreement that was reached many years ago buy about 190 countries that have now signed up to it, and the idea is
that we are screwing up the planet with too much co2 and therefore we have to do something about it. now, what is now coming up at copenhagen at what will be the 15th meeting of the convention, 115 countries in copenhagen from the 7th through 18th, there will be a conference at which the treaty you now have in front of you on the desk there will be signed unless you and everybody watching can stop it. it is that treaty, among other things, says there is going to be a world government. glenn: before we get into that, i have been here a week and have been reading the 2,000-page healthcare pages. it t this one is 181 pages. it says, nations come together, and let's sign, it and what's the harm in signing it, we don't have to live up to it. john, before we get into this, explain how treaties work here in america. >> well, the idea of a treaty is
something that the united states enters into voluntarily, presumably because we think it's in our best interests are. the constitution provides a lot of protection against the abuse of executive power since the it's the executive that negotiates requiring 2/3's of the senate to approve of a treaty. that's a constitutional provision. it's very, very important, and it's one reason why any president's ambitions, including president's obama's, run up against a wall if they try to go too far. that's one reason why the original kyoto protocol never made it to a vote on the senate floor. glenn: under clinton, right? >> exactly. glenn: which everybody seemed to leave out here. in reading this, do you think there is a chance of this going through the senate? >> well, let's be clear, what we have now, what you can see on websites is a negotiating draft, and one of the reasons it is confusing is that in negotiation terms, it is filled with
brackets, meaning it is filled with provisions that are in disagreement. there is an incredible amount of nonsense in this treaty. some of it is not in disagreement, but there is also a lot that has not been agreed to. they have only got five weeks to go. >> this is lord monkton in, i think it was minnesota, right? >> yes. glenn: i have had so many watchdogs e-mail this. this is on fire onto internet. this is a little bit of what he said in minnesota. or not. why don't you, instead, perform it for us now. what exactly did you say in minnesota? >> i said in december, just weeks away, at copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations, to transfer or redistribute wealth to the tune of 2% of
g.d.p. at least from wealthy countries like the united states to poorer countries in alleged reparation for imagined and largely imaginary climate debt, and for enforcement on those countries who haven't signed and don't carry on and do what they said they would do. glenn: there is the climate debt thing which is unbelievable, but let's start at the be inat the beginning here. what page is the global government on? >> you go to annex one, paragraph 38, and the ambassadors rightly said there are many alternatives. there are several annexes. you got to get with the annexes, glenn. you will never be an international negotiator! glenn: how does anything know what anything means anymore? >> that's the idea. glenn: if you look at this and read it, which, of course i have you can make the argument that
it is a -- it is not a global government that they're looking at, it is a governance of this treaty, because you're going to need framework to be able to monitor, true or false? >> well, there are different aspirations by different countries that are negotiating at copenhagen. some want to carry it further than others, principally the europeans, one reason this is, i think, going to turn out badly from their point of view is you've got countries like china and india that have absolutely no intention of signing on to one of the key elements here, which is numerical limits on carbon emissions. believe me, indian and china want exactly as lord monkton says, they want all the climate debt paid and vast environment assistance but are not prepared to sign on to what needs to happen to make this work. glenn: if we sign on but china and india doesn't, we're bound but they're not, right? so the damage will be done only to us?
>> that's why kyoto failed. the agreement tried to limb the industrial countries and give the others a pass. the senate voted 5-- 95-nil to turn down any treat i did like kyoto that exempted the third world countries. the word there is government, not governance, and i have negotiate the negotiated international treaties and never before have i seen the word "government" put in a treaty in this capacity, and they're going to close down the free markets, paragraph 36 of annex one. they are going to take powers in that treaty to operate in interference of and control of all financial markets world wye and there is another provision whereby they will take a tax of 2% on every financial transaction into an annex one
country like america, a rich country, and a 2% levy on financial transactions that are absolutely tiny, you can destroy the entire financial system of new york, wall street, the the chicago exchange, close it all down. that is the power that will be transferred to this new government entity, so don't fall for the ambassadors' very characteristic that this will all be all right. with respect, ambassador, i don't think it will. i think we are heading here for what could be a global government, and this was first thought of 25 years ago by morris strong, the u.n. bureaucrat that set up intergovernmental rather than scientific structure of the u.n. panel on climate change, which is what this is about. he hoped it would turn into a world government. jacques chirac of france said the same thing. al gore talks of global government all the time. this is something that is being
mentioned everywhere you look and they have put the word government in this treaty and it gives them more power to any transnational entity by any treaty before. glenn: if you speak with an english accent, you so much more credible. >> it's true! ambassador, you know, we have spoke on the program before, you know where i think we're headed economically, whether it is tomorrow or five years or eight years down the road, we're headed for debt, unless we turn things around, we're headed for debt that leads us to a banana republic, leads us to a place where you can't pay for it. we're already at $105 trillion debt or actually 0 non-paid for programs that we have promised. i really believe we have a group
of radicals in the white house now, and in and around washington that are pushing for redistributive wealth, marxism, socialism, global government. i mean, it's all there. why do you think that this sounds nuts, or do you think it sounds nuts? >> i don't think it sounds nuts. i think you have to try and look at it incident by incident. i do not think we should under state, this is our many people, many in the obama administration and widely in europe, to move towards global governance. i don't think we should overstate what the consequences of any one agreement are. in fact, it's precisely because the pace of this change is hard to measure that it's difficult to get people excited about it, so by disagree disagreeing about the potential consequences of this draft on copenhagen, i don't mean to ignore the risk to american sovereignty, which i think exists and it is one
reason i called president obama the first post-american president, and it's wye he is so popular in europe, but on this draft, what i think will happen is certainly something will cop out much copenhagen, because they have to declare victory, much like the president has to have victory on healthcare. some bill will pass, but the more likely result, given the lack of progress is that they just kick the can down the road, and we'll have these battles to fight again. glenn: this is the disagreement that i had with mitt romney. i like mitt romney. i think he is an honorable man many i think he is a deal maker. when he was in massachusetts, he came up with romney care, and he said it was responsible. we needed to have t i had to broker a deal, and it was responsible. i said, mitt, you're not king. it's going to evolve. you leave, you know, under your hand, maybe it might have done something, but you leave and now
the door is open. we're opening up a door here. we don't want to open. >> that's absolutely right. and the danger, also, which we have seen time and again in the negotiation of european treaties by which brittish democracy has all but gone. 90% of our laws are now made by commissioners in secret, and then our parliament is made to pass t they have no option but to do so. we have lost our dem crass through exactly this kind of carelessness where people will say, of course the treaty doesn't really say government. it does say government. it does transfer to this government the power to shut down or regulate the financial market. it does allow it to levy taxes an enforcement penalties up to 10 times the price of a ton of cargo on international exchanges. this whole treaty is targeted at america. one must agree it is only a draft, but that's yim i'm shouting now that you have to
ing up your senators, ring up the white house, go to www.web commentary.com and sign up for the instrument of repude race of in -- repudiation of this treaty, because if you don't make enough noise now, there is enough in that treaty that if it stands unamended and it has been ooh through several rounds of negotiations before it got to this point, if you don't stop, it and that treaty does by some mischance go through, and we have seen this time and again in european treat tizz, oh, they will never reach agreement and at the last moment they do they have an all night session and come out with their ties around their ears, bags under the eyes and say oh, we have done it, and suddenly another slice of our freedom is gone. do not relax. do not take a risk with your constitution. glenn: wow, there's a lot to do. remember the old days when we could just sit back and watch t.v. and it didn't matter? not anymore. when we come back, i want to poke some holes in lord
>> it is what people call u.s. exceptionalism in the united states. the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there is going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume in terms of energy and material resources in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more resourceful and prosperous. >> if we keep doing what we are doing, we will double those emissions over the next 50
years. what we need to do instead is having those emissions sharply declining over the next 50 years glenn: if you care about the planet, that's great. i don't know anybody who says i don't want the planet to go away, but we all live on this planet and if we had no way of life, what does that mean for the future. we need to coexist with the planet. i have to tell you that the science is getting shoddier and shoddier as the days go by and then there is the strain of american exceptionalism. let's talk about that. >> it is our fault is what he is saying. it is basically that he thinks the attitudes we take is the source of the problem, and there is a lot of this in the draft
treaty. mr. holdren and these other people think we need to redistribute the wealth in the third world. glenn: that is called carbon debt. >> we have been co2 and they say that's been screwing up the planet. we now know that, though, that co2 is harmless, however, that's the science. they don't care about the science. this is going to roll on. they say we owe climate debt to countries that haven't burned lots of co2, and we're going to have to pay very large amounts of money from multiple different parts of the treaty to third world countries. i haven't yet been able to add up what what it is going to cost to america, but it is going to be very expensive, and there isn't the slightest scientific backup for any this. >> how is it possible to pay the climate debt with the debt that america has? >> in part, this is not a bad
climate debt. the same people who are arguing for this redistribution of wealth from the developed world to the developing world were arguing it 60 years ago, because it was the debt of the colonialists an imperialist to pay to the newly independent col niz and of a a few years after that it was our response toibl pay it because the terms of trade disadvantaged suppliers of basic commodities and then there was another reason and then another reason and now it is the environment. it leads to the whole argument of why you need more government control in this country, and why you need redisdistribution of income in this country and worldwide because of the environment suggest that the environment is just a convenient excuse for a lot of these people. glenn: all right let me go to political facts, a fact-checking website. are you familiar with it? >> yes. glenn: it says that you lying and declares you a pants on fire -- >> britches on fire. glenn: they said a couple of
thing. first of all, let me play the first clip. this is, you say, everyone will sign the treaty. go ahead and play the first clip. a treaty will be signed. your pez will sign it, most of the left wing regimes around the country will rub remember stamp it. virtually nobody won't sign it. glenn: they're saying that copenhagen is proving, quote increasingly unlikely to produce anything to sign. >> the point is do you want to take a risk with your precious constitution of liberties? this great nation that i so much love, i'm a great admirer of your constitution and i don't think you should put it at risk. glenn: i wouldn't want to hurt the carbon. i wouldn't want to hurt the earth and burn all the carbon and fly over to copenhagen, so i
wouldn't even be in attendance, but i'm not the president. ok. second, is signing a treaty doesn't mean that its provisions become binding. clinton signed kyoto 2 but he never sent it to the senate to ratify so we don't have to worry about t. >> that's right. let's look at law of the sea treaty, who ron reagan whos was more in your camp than mine than the present guy, he refused to sign it because it set off an international tribunal with powers far more limited than what will give to the world government t was called a tribunal, not a government, but it had powers to transfer wealth and technology from your oil companies drilling on the sea bed, for instance, to third world countries. president clinton signed it. it was never ratified. it never went near the senate, but the state department insists because it was signed, the united states was bound by its provisions.
your own bureaucrats are going to say that even if he just signed it that it is binding. you have to be care careful not to sign anything. >> that is true to what some people say in the state department but as matter of basic policy decision, we are not bound by it, and nobody should -- glenn: look, we haven't -- >> that takes the risk out of our control. if obama wants to sign, we can't stop him. glenn: i understand that, but our protection is in the senate at the moment. glenn: but we have a lot of people in the senate and a lot of people in the house that don't even look at the constitution anymore. they don't even find it relevant anymore. >> that's why the super majority provision for the ratification of treaties is 2/3 of the senate, and that's why 67 is so important, and why it's critical that anything like this be directed down the treaty path. >> how confident are you that he won't sign this as an executive agreement? it's been carefully worded as
the copen hag copenhagen agreement, so he can do that. >> the environmentalists would like, that but i think it would be a political firestorm in this country if he did. let's not forget the clinton administration presented kyoto as a treat r. treaty and the notion that he could shift the notion that kyoto 2 is not a treaty would be politically devastating. glenn: lord monkton would request the use of my blackboard, a national treasure. some day it will be in the smithsonian. we will be back in just a second and he will take it over. ooo li.
join me for "special report" at 6:00 eastern. now back to glenn beck. glenn: america, we're at a crossroads. i think it's time to make a decision. i showed you last night. you are going to stand with the new revoluntionaries of 2009, or are you going to stand with the original revoluntionaries of 1776? you want harry reid and nancy pelosi mandating how big your car can be, how many miles you can drive? you want charlie rangel dictating the number of big macs you can eat or if you can eat meat at all. in the city of baltimore, it is meatless monday at the schools so kids can learn how to make healthy choices for them, and also for the planet. i don't know about you but i would rather make my own choices t seems like an easy choice but
yet here we are. back again with christopher monkton, former prime minister to margaret thatcher and john bolton, former u.s. am ambassador and fox news contributor. lord monkton, up at the blackboard, boy, that is intimidating. have i ever done that to you? that's not good. >> pay attention! glenn: all right. what do you have. >> right. here is why there is no point, economically speaking, in doing anything to curb our carbon emissions even if, as we now know, in fact, the u.n. is wrong, but let's pretend it's right. here is why nothing will work. we burn -- we burn 30 billion tons a year of co2 worldwide, all right? 30 billion tons a year. now, that is the equivalent of 2
parts per million per year in the atmosphere, so that's 15 parts -- that's 15 billion tons per part per million, all right? are you with us so far? glenn: not really, but i will pretend yes. >> it is very simple. 30 divided by 2 is 15 billion. with us so far? glenn: ok. >> now, the u.n. says we going to increase the am of co2 in the atmosphere unless we do something by it by 468 parts per million. in the next century, 468, so that means if you multiply that by that, you get 7 trillion tons we're going to emit of co2 if we don't do anything over the next century. 7 trillion tons. ok. now, they say that those 7 trillion tons are going to cause
7 fahrenheit of warming in the next century. that's wrong but mass r. that's what they said. that means in order to forestall one fahrenheit you have to forego 1 trillion tons of co2. now, divide one trillion tons by the number of tons in 30 billion tons per year that we're starting with that we're burning worldwide, and how many years is it going to take before we change 1 fahrenheit degree? come along with me. glenn: i won't be alive. >> it is 33 years for one fahrenheit degree. 33 years means no automobiles anywhere on the planet. no electricity, no planes no, trains, no hospitals, no factories, no carbon emissions at all for 33 years just for one fahrenheit degree. that is why it is absolutely no point trying to mitigate carbon emissions. it makes not the slightest difference to the climate.
end of message. glenn: john, how many different ways, when you were in the u.n., are they coming after our sovereignty and our money? >> well, in a variety of different ways. let's talk about one that lord monkton mentioned earlier which is a continuing source of concern, and that is the idea of an international pact. this has been proposed in a lot of different circumstances -- a tax on international airline tickets a tax on international banking transactions here in copenhagen it is a tax on environmental-related things, but the point is to provide a source of revenue to super national institutions, independent of the decisions of member governments, because the left internationally has recognized that the funding mechanism for the u.n. doesn't work when you assess contributions annually, and you
have to depend on those americans in congress to pass annual appropriations. they fear congress cutting off their money, so they're constantly looking for sources through some kind of tax mechanism that will bring in revenue that they can use independently of congress. that's why in the law of the sea treaty, there is a revenue source from sea bed money. that issue, which sounds mindlessly technical, is something that comes up over and over again, something that members of congress and the american people need to know about and be concerned about. glenn: whenner we're talking abt co2, the idea is the more co2, the warmer it gets. >> that's the idea. glenn: right. >> it's not true, but that the is the idea. >> but we're in a cooling period. >> yes. >> and i'm hearing now scientists say the cooling that is happening only proves how warm it is getting. >> that's right, and it makes no sense, does it? glenn: no. so these are from newsweek, and
did you see them? >> yes, i saw the original article from 1975 from which these are the two drafts. glenn: show me. >> here you have got the falling temperatures from around 1945, roughly, until around 1970, and by that stage, they were all beginning to say, oh, we're heading for global cooling. glenn: i remember that. >> and john holdren, who is now the science advisor, believe it or not to the president of the united states, he said at this time in 1975, this is what he said, he said there is going to be so much ice accumulating in antartica because of the extreme cold that is coming because of our activities on the planet, that that ice will fall over into the ocean and cause the largest tidal wave in human history and wipe out coastal civilizations everywhere. that's what john holdren said in 1975. glenn: what year did that happen, the big tidal wave? >> i missed that. glenn: there was no fox news at that time, that's why you never
may not sign it coming in january r this has a lot of people concerned. lord monkton, i mean, do people ever call you lord, lordy, lord? what do they call you? >> just call me sir. glenn: sir, so you're knighted? >> no, no. sir is just easier. mai lord is the easier thing. my lord is the correct thing. >> can i turn my back or -- >> always back away. glenn: you say this will lead to global government. >> it says in paragraph 38. the word government is there. it says what their powers will be. they are enormous. it is bigger than any government has right now. glenn: and john bolton, this is kind of in the aim sayer ya, but you say there -- it is in the same area, but i think it is a mistake? >> i don't think it is and a pock lips, but it is a mistake.
it is not and a pock lips, but it is a mistake. this is not an apocalypse, but with all this cooling, it doesn't make any sense that it is caused by co2, but in this it has a carbon debt that we will have to pay to the rest of the world because we use so much carbon. you say you can disprove the co2 and the global warming. >> that's right. it has now been disproved, not by me, i should say, but by professor richard lynnson of m.i.t. and you saw the calculations on the lord board up there. glenn: my head hurt. >> it says 1 fahrenheit of global warming in 33 years so that means doing nothing about it. now, if we go to wise-up window,
i would like to show you a draft from lynnson's paper. now, what you see there is there are 1r 1 separate computer models drafted there, and they all show that as temperature rises at the sea surface from left to right, then the outgoing aid ation at the top of the atmosphere is predicted to fall because all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that we're putting are stopping the radiation from getting out. these are pre-dicks by the xbox 360 playstations of the u.n. it is what i call globalized group thinking. there is no scientific basis for this. glenn: that makes no sense to me. let me see if i have it right. the red line going down is the prediction, right? >> right. glenn: it means that what is escaping out into space -- >> you get less and less going out to space as the temperature increases. >> that's right, less and less
greenhouse gases go out to space. that's the prediction. that's the theory. if you don't predict that, you can't say that the problem is co2. if we could have the next slide, i will show you what really happens. nour look in the middle there. that is a measured result. it took 20 years to compile that one lift draft. professor lynnson of m.i.t. who knows more about this than anyone alive and it took him 20 years to get data to do this, and it shows as the temperature increases, so the amount of aid ation going out to -- the amount of radiation going out to space also increases and the draft is completely different, in the real world, the green one from the satellite experience. glenn: so the green is actually what happens and the red lines are what all the predictions are. >> that's the xbox 360, so we have a measured result that
shows all the group thinking, all the consensus, so-called, which you can see in these models because they have a consensus among themselves, but that consensus is proven by direct and meticulous measurements to be wong. why is this particular paper saying, that the outgoing radiation is not being trapped down here, as al gore and the others say it s it is getting out to space, very much as it always did. instead of getting 7 fahrenheits of warming this century, just one fahrenheit, small, harmless and generally beneficial and that paper history will relate ♪
and safety. we can all fight the flu virus by taking four simple steps. number 1: get vaccinated every year. number 2: if you do have the flu, stay home so you avoid spreading it to others. number 3: always cover your sneezes and coughs. and number 4: wash your hands frequently. [running water] for the latest information in flu prevention tips, please visit flu.gov. in flu prevention tips,
is. glenn: back with lord monkton and ambassador bolton. lord monkton, you you have been asking for a he debate with al gore for a very long time. >> yes. glenn: has he ever responded? >> i have taken out advertisments in the newspapers for six months at a time. i challenged him in congress when i was invited by the republican minority leader on the energy house committee and he wouldn't do it, and now, ok, we're on a real roll. glenn: it is still cable, but it
is still a real television show. >> and also, it is glenn beck. it it doesn't add too much around the waistline, but anyway -- i thought i would get that one in! glenn: hey, i'm losing control of this show. >> thank you very much. you've now been with christopher monkton. i would say to al -- al, baby," -- >> tell him right there. >> "al, baby, if you really think you want to raise the profile of this issue, then why don't you agree to debate with me on international television the fees we will earn apart from anything else would be enormous, and i know you would love, that because money seems to stick to you very rapidly. i want you to face me in a debate about global warming, and if you don't dare, i want you to remain silent about that subject forever from now on? are you a coward or will you step up to the plate? are you an armchair quarterback,
we have 2 minutes on the clock. ready? >> yes. glenn: both of you, ready? monkton, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, supposed to save money and energy, nerve are mind they're loaded with toxic mercury, are they effective? >> no. glenn: bolton, will the u.s. will the u.n. stop being a paper tiger and actually stop genocide instead of writing leters? >> when are you going to ask serious questions? glenn: and a suggestion of painting the roofs white on our house to stop global warming. >> that is $51 trillion for a 1 point fahrenheit reduction in temperature worldwide. glenn: hitler's brain, in the basement of the u.n.? >> no! glenn: so you have been in the basement. of the u.n.? >> i v i know everything in the basement. glenn: now in baltimore city schools they are saying you can't eat meat. it is a meatless monday to help the planet. make any difference?
>> none whatever because the atmospheric concentration is only present at 2/3 of's part per million and its effect is just the same as 7 years of carbon emissions and that is the hole of the meat theory in the atmosphere. as one of our lords said "i don't want to call on a fart tax ." glenn: bolton, is the u.n. conspiring with powerful and secret group of elite globalists to rule the world through an autonomous world government known as the new world order? >> no. >> maybe. glenn: politicians are telling us to keep our tires inflated to improve gas mileage. work? >>